Fact-based journalism that sparks the Canadian conversation

Articles Business Environment Health Politics Arts & Culture Society

Special Series Hope You’re Well For the Love of the Game Living Rooms In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration Terra Cognita More special series >

For the Love of the Game

In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration

More special series >

Events The Walrus Talks The Walrus Video Room The Walrus Leadership Roundtables The Walrus Leadership Forums Article Club

The Walrus Video Room

The Walrus Leadership Roundtables

The Walrus Leadership Forums

Subscribe Renew your subscription Change your address Magazine Issues Newsletters Podcasts

Renew your subscription

The Walrus Lab Hire The Walrus Lab Amazon First Novel Award

Amazon First Novel Award

How the Fear of Trump Is Helping Quebec Sovereignty

The US president is making independence look rational in an unpredictable world

When the Parti Québécois talks about sovereignty, Ottawa reaches for the same emotional tools it used in 1980 and 1995: fear of economic collapse, warnings about global instability, and dire predictions of what would happen if Quebec tried to stand on its own. The words shift with the times, but the structure never does.

Decode the stories behind the headlines with The Walrus newsletter. Sign up for The Walrus newsletter and get trusted Canadian journalism straight in your inbox.

That’s how Mélanie Joly, Canada’s foreign affairs minister at the time and one of her party’s best communicators in Quebec, found herself warning last year that the PQ’s renewed push for independence would “hand Quebec over to Donald Trump.” It was a dramatic claim, delivered with conviction, and meant to suggest that sovereignty in a turbulent world amounts to geopolitical surrender. Independence, she implied, would weaken Quebec precisely when America is most threatening.

The problem is not that the argument is wrong; it’s that it belongs to another era.

Invoking a foreign bogeyman to scare Quebec back into the Canadian fold is a tactic forged in the politics of the 1990s, when Quebecers still believed Canada could insulate them from global disorder. Today, the electorate—particularly the younger half—is less inclined to interpret warnings the way Ottawa hopes they will. Frightening Quebec with Trump says less about Quebec’s vulnerability than about the federal government’s own anxieties.

This is the deeper flaw in Ottawa’s approach: fear campaigns depend on trust in the messenger. In the ’80s and ’90s, federal institutions enjoyed a degree of goodwill in Quebec that made warnings credible. But years of uneven federal leadership, recurring provincial–federal tensions, and a cultural shift away from deference have eroded that foundation. The federal government is no longer perceived as the calm adult in the room. It is seen, increasingly, as just another player.

And then there is the second requirement for fear to work: the audience must already feel insecure. Modern Quebec doesn’t—at least less than it used to.

This is a society marked by cultural confidence, linguistic pride, economic resilience, and a clear sense of its own political identity. Younger Quebecers, raised long after the last referendum, are far less susceptible to existential narratives. They are less likely to see independence as catastrophe but as a policy option.

That is the crucial shift the federal government could be missing: messages of danger only resonate with people who doubt their own footing. Quebecers, by and large, do not. Which is why dramatic appeals—especially those involving foreign threats—may feel increasingly out of touch.

In both 1980 and 1995, the federal voice Quebec heard most clearly was its own. Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien were not just prime ministers who opposed sovereignty; they were Quebecers, fluent in its language, rhythms, and political reflexes. They could argue the case for Canada from within Quebec’s cultural frame, not across it. That mattered more than is often acknowledged. It is unlikely to be the case again.

That shift is not merely demographic or political. It is symbolic. Federal authority now risks sounding more distant—linguistically, culturally, and emotionally—at precisely the moment when intimacy, not instruction, would matter most.

Quebec is acutely sensitive to what effort signals. This was evident in a controversy surrounding Air Canada chief executive officer Michael Rousseau, whose remarks about not feeling the need to learn French were received not as a personal failing but as a failure of respect. The issue........

© The Walrus